What us "1800R"?

2005 called and it wants it's 1920x1080 resolution back.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT running 2560x1440

Umm no, just because you don't have a GPU to push games at 2560x1440 doesn't mean you can't run your desktop and all other apps at 2560x1440. It also doesn't mean you can't run at a lower resolution besides 2560x1440 for your games since most monitors support multiple resolutions and maybe get a better card down road and not have a monitor that is OBSOLETE out of gate already stuck at 1920x1080.

Running 2560x1440 requires a lot more GPU power, and even now you need a fairly decent card to run at that resolution with game features turned right up. There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT running 2560x1440 if you can't max out all in-game settings. Therefore, anything above 1920x1080 is still enthusiast with enthusiast spec requriements and PRICE. This monitor is a great choice as it is more budget friendly for the monitor itself, and better for the typical computer user. Sure, 2560x1440 woudl be better, but because of the price of the monitor, and the required hardware to get the full benefits of it, going this route wouldn't really be sensible from a business point of view. This is especially considering the competition in that market and the size of that market. This monitor is therefore ideal for the upper-mainstream user, the curved panel giving immersiveness and the nice VA picture, and people can actually make use of it from a performance point of view. Sure, some people go 2560x1440 or higher, but the very instant you start having game performance issues due to the resolution, or having to lower in game settings, the whole point of the higher resolution is defeated.

I disagree, I have a 670 and game @ 1440 and i'll always turn down settings before turning down my resolution, in fact, majority of the time if i'm forced to lower my res it means the game is simply too demanding to play at a decent frame rate at all.

I had a chance recently to see one of these curved monitors from Samsung first hand. I wasn't impressed. Seems more like a gimmick than better tech.

2005 called and it wants it's 1920x1080 resolution back.

Ill take 2560x1080 instead for curved monitor. And guess what, 1080p was not even maintstream for console or PC untill 2006-2007 after PS3 launch. And that was mostly for TVs not pc monitors.

Current VA panels give very natural colors with good contrast ratio and black point. But they have some color pitch if wathing from wider angles. Thats why Curved VA panels comes with help.. So its looks like good concept, just resolution and brightness is not for evryone. Hope one day they start made bigger curved 21:9 on VA panells.

Freesync and 60hz.. hm.. kinda sux .. 120hz would be a little better.

Freesync and 60hz.. hm.. kinda sux .. 120hz would be a little better.

Especially since the res is only 1080p 60hz is quite low for a freesync.

What devices out there that you would spend this much money on / buy such a nice panel for, would be using VGA (D-Sub) ? (Genuine Q, they're obviously still adding them to displays for a reason)

What devices out there that you would spend this much money on / buy such a nice panel for, would be using VGA (D-Sub) ? (Genuine Q, they're obviously still adding them to displays for a reason)

For compatibility reasons.

For compatibility reasons.

Surely anyone buying a display like that would have a GPU with at minimum, HDMI / DVI

Never ever will I go back to 1080p. Heck, I was on 1200p when 16:10 was still a thing. Now on 1440p, and it can only get wider.

A curved monitor at only 1920x1080? No...just...no.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT running 2560x1440 if you can't max out all in-game settings.

Nonsense. There's plenty of superfluous settings which can be disabled to achieve 60 fps at 1440p without having to have a luxury card. You definitely don't need to max out the settings. I personally don't even like some settings such as motion blur or depth of field. If I wanted a blurry experience I'd get a crappy monitor. One of the biggest offenders is SSAO/HBAO, in some games it makes little difference at the cost of a ton of GPU resources. SSAO is the posterchild of superfluous, it's one of those things which you only notice if you stop and look for it. Game textures and light reflections are not advanced enough for it to matter. It's not 2004 anymore. In fact I never used 1080p for more than a few months. I went from a 23" 1152p VA to a 23" 1080p e-IPS for a few months to a 27" 1440p 10 bit AH-IPS, no turning back now boy.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT running 2560x1440 if you can't max out all in-game settings.

Absolute BS. On 1440p since my gtx 770 days and would never go back to a 1080p no matter what. Games with lowered settings (chiefly AA) look vastly superior on 1440p than they ever did maxed out on 1080p. Another factor that weighs in is screen size. Larger screens = greater visual impact and immersion. But 1080p cant do above 24" without pixelation. 27" ideal for 1440p and even larger. Even my 27" is beginning to feel small nowadays so looking for larger size (32") as potential upgrade. PPI on 1440p 32" is same as 1080p 24" btw.

2005 called and it wants it's 1920x1080 resolution back.

another one with old computer parts and mid range GPU trolling about 1080p resolution... let me guess, you are one of those vocal minority that can magically run all games maxed out with your specs at 4K? now on a more serious note, 1080p is here to stay. check steam hw survey, 1080p is most popular resolution and its usage keeps increasing. i myself have 1080p monitor and 1080p TV, I could easily afford 4K everthing and another 980Ti to drive that, i just see no reason whatsoever to do so. 1080p is perfect for me, games are always smooth, amazing compatibility, never weird issues, no need to mess around with scaling and having UI too big or too small.

2005 called and it wants it's 1920x1080 resolution back.

Tell that to the consoles that can barley maintain 900p at 30fps.

Running 2560x1440 requires a lot more GPU power, and even now you need a fairly decent card to run at that resolution with game features turned right up. There is ABSOLUTELY NO POINT running 2560x1440 if you can't max out all in-game settings. Therefore, anything above 1920x1080 is still enthusiast with enthusiast spec requriements and PRICE. This monitor is a great choice as it is more budget friendly for the monitor itself, and better for the typical computer user. Sure, 2560x1440 woudl be better, but because of the price of the monitor, and the required hardware to get the full benefits of it, going this route wouldn't really be sensible from a business point of view. This is especially considering the competition in that market and the size of that market. This monitor is therefore ideal for the upper-mainstream user, the curved panel giving immersiveness and the nice VA picture, and people can actually make use of it from a performance point of view. Sure, some people go 2560x1440 or higher, but the very instant you start having game performance issues due to the resolution, or having to lower in game settings, the whole point of the higher resolution is defeated.

You're getting a lot of attention from this reply. In any case, my reply to you would be. We have more then enough 1920x1080 display models/options/price-tiers out there from various vendors, and a lot those various vendors seem to have a lot of options already for the 1920x1080 crowd. I think we could have stopped introducing "new" models on January 1st, 2016, and potentially supplied the world for the next year. If supply somehow ran thin, reproduction on existing models, would surely be easy to fill said orders. I really see no real need for Samsung to be introducing more variations of a resolution, that will hopefully be fazed out in the near future (one to two years). Edit: Seeing the amount of 4K TV's out there, and the lack of 4K content. It seems rather counter productive to keep flooding the market with 1920x1080 displays. Personally, I would rather start forcing everyone to 4K displays and upscale 1920x1080 content to them (Ala - HDTV's). Then maybe we would see 4K content as well as the hardware to feed them, ramp up exponentially.

Tell that to the consoles that can barley maintain 900p at 30fps.

How many said consolers, plug into a 4k TV, and have their game up-scaled to it? Furthermore, how many Console vendors display/demo their games and consoles on 4K TV's up-scaling the image? I "had" PS4 plugged into my 4k TV, before I sold the PS4. Up-scaling, works pretty damn well these days.

So, it looks like my acer predator will last me for a looooooong time. Good to hear.

http://media0.giphy.com/media/14Xx5B178hibS/giphy.gif Hell yeah. A great monitor is a great monitor. Its expensive up front, but will be an item you can use for years. So happy I was in the position to grab one.. takes gaming to a whole new level.